Rand is making his pop and Jimmy Stewart proud. John Brennan is a scumbag who will murder Americans with drones when ordered to do so. FUCK HIM!!!

Rand Paul begins talking filibuster against John Brennan

By Ed O’Keefe , Updated: March 6, 2013

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) began speaking just before noon Wednesday on the Senate floor in opposition to the nomination of John Brennan to lead the CIA, saying that he planned to speak “for the next few hours” in a rare talking filibuster.

Watch live video from the Senate floor below:

Paul, who strongly opposes the Brennan nomination and the Obama administration’s use of unmanned aerial drones, becomes the first senator to make use of the procedural tactic in more than two years and the first to do so since the Senate approved a bipartisan rules reform package in January.

“I will speak until I can no longer speak,” Paul said. “I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

Paul began his filibuster at 11:47 a.m. Eastern time. Around the one-hour mark, he acknowledged “I can’t talk forever” and said his throat was getting dry.

At the start if the 1 p.m. hour, Paul was the only senator on the floor. Just 30 people watched from the Senate gallery above while a few security guards, stenographers and Senate pages held their appointed spots on the floor. In the rafters, a man responsible for operating the Senate television cameras was seen reading a newspaper.

At 2:57 p.m., after Paul had been talking for more than three hours, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined the filibuster and gave Paul a break. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined at 3:08 p.m. The three senators are now taking turns talking, with Lee and Cruz alternately asking Paul questions.

Paul’s comments from the Senate floor come as he’s raised objections in recent weeks. Paul first threatened to filibuster the Brennan nomination in late February, when he sent a letter to administration officials asking whether the U.S. government would ever use a drone strike to kill an American on U.S. soil.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. responded to Paul’s inquiry Monday, saying the administration has “no intention” of carrying out drone strikes on suspected terrorists in the United States, but could use them in response to “an extraordinary circumstance” such as a major terrorist attack.

Paul called Holder’s refusal to rule out drone strikes within the United States “more than frightening.”

On Wednesday, Paul elaborated on his concerns: “When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, ‘No.’ The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that.”

Paul noted that he has voted for Obama’s previous Cabinet nominees, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and suggested his cause was not partisan.

“I have allowed the president to pick his political appointees,” Paul said. “But I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution. I cannot sit at my desk quietly and let the president say that he will kill Americans on American soil who are not actively attacking a country.

“I would be here if it were a Republican president doing this. Really the great irony of this is that President Obama’s opinion on this is an extension of George Bush’s opinion.”

Paul also said that he was “alarmed” at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes. He suggested that many college campuses in the 1960s were full of people who might have been considered enemies of the state.

By the 2 p.m. hour, Paul said he would continue to speak as long as he can, but he admitted: “Ultimately, I can’t win. There’s not enough votes.”

Brennan has gained the support of some Republican senators, even as others want to hold up his nomination in hopes of getting more answers from the White House on the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. His nomination easily cleared the Senate Intelligence Committee this week, suggesting he would have the 60 votes required to end Paul’s filibuster and bring the nomination to a vote.

Any senator can opt to hold the floor to speak on any matter, but the practice of speaking for hours on end is rare, especially in the modern-day Senate where the chamber’s rules are used more often to block legislation or to hold show votes on trivial matters.

Paul’s talking filibuster is the first conducted by a senator since December 2010, when Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) held the Senate floor for more than eight hours in opposition to Obama’s proposed tax-cut plan.

The longest filibuster in the Senate was Sen. Strom Thurmond’s (D-S.C.) 24-hour filibuster against the 1957 Civil Rights Act (Thurmond later became a Republican). Two other senators — Sens. Alphonse D’Amato (R-N.Y.) and Wayne Morse (I-Ore.) — have also filibustered for more than 20 hours.

37 Comments

AWD says:

Amazing, how little people care, especially our elected officials, about the possibility of drone strikes on U.S. soil, and the ability for Obama and the other criminals in Washington to kill whomever they want without a trial. We are truly doomed.

A man who can’t give a simple yes or no answer to Senator Paul’s question to him about supporting (or not) drone strikes on American citizens on American soil deserves no job at any level in the federal government, let alone Director of the CIA.

“We don’t envision that ever happening” is NOT an acceptable answer. Rand Paul’s filibuster is the principled response from a principled American.

Starting at 1147ET, Rand Paul began his James-Joycean discussion on US-based Drone strikes, six hours later (and with some minor aid from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)), he is still going. Have you ever felt so strongly about something that you were willing to talk about it for over six hours? From Cruz’s note that today is the 177th anniversary of the fall of (or stand at) the Alamo to Paul’s rhetorical (we think) question to the President: “Are you going to just drop a hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” We suspect the night is yet young as the snowquester continues.

The Atlantic summarizes:

Rand Paul spent Wednesday doing something you don’t see very often—an honest-to-goodness, non-stop filibuster speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Lacking the 41 votes necessary to prevent a cloture vote that would block the nomination of John Brennan to be the CIA director, Paul chose to stall the old-fashioned way, through the original meaning of the talking filibuster. As long as Paul spoke (and stood), he held the Senate captive — and he had a lot to say about drones.

Paul opened by vowing to “speak until I can no longer speak.” He held true to that, though senators from several other states (including a Democrat from Oregon) came to the floor to ask questions, during which breaks Paul presumably attended to necessary personal needs.

Paul’s was the first talking filibuster since Bernie Sanders spoke for 8.5 hours back in 2010, beginning at around 11:45 a.m. and lasting well into the evening. Whether or not Paul’s intended audience — the president — paid any attention remains unclear.

By way of reference (via About.com), The record for the longest filibuster goes to U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, according to U.S. Senate records. Thurmond began speaking at 8:54 p.m. on Aug. 28 and continued until 9:12 p.m. the following evening, reciting the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, President George Washington’s farewell address and other historical documents along the way.

Some choice, totally out-of-context quotes, so far (via The Atlantic):

“If there was an ounce of courage in this body, I would not be here alone.”

“The point isn’t that any body in our country is Hitler…”

“If you’re going to kill people in America, you need to have rules and we need to know what those rules are. … I don’t want to find out that having seven days worth of food in your house is on the list.”

Loving Ted Cruz’ commentary… he’s reading out all the Twitter comments (#standwithrand) demonstrating that support for a discussion of the Constitution from the left, the right and esp. the libertarians.

“Mr. Holder also said he is not sure Congress could ban the president from using drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil.”
—-Attorney General Eric Holder, in response to a question from Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), as reported by the Washington Times

Ron Wyden, a really liberal Democrat senator from your state of Oregon, is among those who appear to be supporting Rand Paul, as is Mike Lee, a Republican senator from Utah. Is the bandwagon growing? Tune in tomorrow morning.

SSS, I heard Wyden’s speech. He made it clear that he is going to vote for Brennan. It’s not clear to me why he showed up at all. A blog post from “blueoregon.com:

Today’s badass move by Senator Ron Wyden

Carla Axtman

Today on the floor of the US Senate, some pretty extraordinary stuff took place.

There was actually a real, legitimate, talking filibuster. Senators took to the floor ( the real, old-fashioned Mr. Smith Goes To Washington way), and made a case to the American people about why they’re obstructing a vote.
The filibuster was led by Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who, when he isn’t doing weird and crazy stuff like trying to slash the public safety net for the elderly, is doing some serious sounding of the alarm against the Obama Administration’s claim that it has legal authority to kill an American on American soil without due process.

Who (besides other Republicans) stood up with Rand Paul and filibustered with him? Oregon’s own Senator Ron Wyden. I haven’t yet found full video of Senator Wyden’s remarks. But Politico has the opening remark, which you can see here.

Update: A longer excerpt of Senator Wyden’s remarks:

The fact that the Obama Administration is actually trying to make a legal argument that it’s okay to kill US citizens on US soil without due process, even if it’s meant only for extraordinary circumstances, is appalling. And yes, I voted for Obama. But this is just flat wrong and frankly, antithetical to what it means to be an American as far as I’m concerned.
And it’s our job as Americans to stand up for the right thing, especially if the guy we supported and voted for is doing something wrong. And make no mistake, Obama is absolutely wrong to be doing this.

So well done, Senator Wyden. Today you were a badass. Would that more of your colleagues follow suit.

Incidentally, this talking filibuster is EXACTLY what Senator Jeff Merkley has been fighting for with filibuster reform. Today we saw how important it is that Senator Merkley’s reforms become reality.

PS, I know Carla Axtman. I used to have lunch with her on occasion. She is very smart and we had animated debates, but is as partisan and left as they come. She also works in politics.

Well, that’s that. Wish Rand had put that idiot Durbin in his place, but he was clearly too tired. Cruz did a pretty good job, though.

Hopefully this will last far beyond today/tonight and create a different discussion in this country — not just on drones killing Americans on US soil, but on the shredding of the Constitution, how important it is to stand up for liberty and the Bill of Rights and how government power, particularly from the Executive Branch, needs to be reigned in.

Novista…yeah I’ve wondered about that meeting. I would love to know what was said. I can imagine Ben told him that very soon Ron would get his wish…the end of the Federal Reserve but this would happen only when TSHTF. Bet Ben told him that scenario was right around the corner .

–“Senator uses old-style filibuster on CIA nominee,” by AP’s Richard Lardner, with Jim Kuhnhenn: “Sen. Rand Paul ended his filibuster Thursday shortly after midnight, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also a Kentucky Republican, said he would continue to oppose [John] Brennan’s confirmation and resist ending the debate … Paul’s performance, which centered on questions about the possible use of drones against targets in the United States, clearly energized a number of his GOP colleagues, who came to the floor in a show of support and to share in the speaking duties. .. Actual talking filibusters have become rare in the Senate, where the rules are typically used in procedural ways to block the other party’s agenda. … Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, read Twitter messages from people eager to ‘Stand With Rand.’ … Cruz … read passages from Shakespeare’s ‘Henry V’ and lines from the 1970 movie ‘Patton’ … Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., made references to rappers Jay-Z and Wiz Khalifa. …

“Along with Cruz, Rubio and McConnell , other Republican senators who joined Paul on the floor included Mike Lee of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Tim Scott of South Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., also made an appearance. Wyden has long pressed for greater oversight of the use of drones. … The record for the longest individual speech on the Senate floor belongs to former Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. … [As Paul ended, he said:] ‘I discovered that there are some limits to filibustering and I’m going to have to go and take care of one of those in a few minutes.'” http://bit.ly/10khgCB

–“Holder says the president could theoretically target an American on U.S. soil with lethal force,” by Richard A. Serrano: “Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. wrote this week in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that he could envision ‘an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate’ to use [a drone strike to kill an American on U.S. soil]. Those words touched off a heated debate Wednesday in the Senate over when and where the president can order the killing of U.S. citizens designated as ‘enemy combatants.’ … ‘Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill Americans?’ Paul asked. … ‘Do we want martial law in this country?’ Paul asked, mocking the claim that the entire world could be considered a battlefield in the war against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. ‘The hell this is a battlefield! This is our country.'” http://lat.ms/YOFzlg

Filibuster according to Paul over, #StandWithRand lives on
March 7, 2013, 10:51 AM
.
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster over U.S. drone strikes finally ended at a little before 1 a.m. Thursday morning, but juices were still flowing on Twitter as the Senate prepared to later Thursday take up the Central Intelligence Agency-director nomination that Paul’s move sidetracked.

Paul, son of the libertarian hero Ron Paul, and a small band of Republicans (plus one Democrat) waged a nearly 13-hour filibuster over what they said was the danger of drone strikes against American citizens on U.S. soil. “What will be the standard for how we kill Americans in America?” Paul asked at one point, as recounted by the New York Times. Other senators, including conservative star Marco Rubio, joined in, meaning the Senate was filled with non-stop speaking for more than half a day.

Paul decided to filibuster after getting a letter from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that would not rule out using drone strikes within the U.S. in “extraordinary circumstances.”

The Senate on Thursday morning resumed debating the nomination of President Barack Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, which Paul’s filibuster delayed. But Paul – joined by one Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon — had made his point, and social media is still juiced up mid-morning on Thursday. For a sample, just check #StandWithRand.

John Brennan has a true understanding how the CORRECT use of drone technology saves the United States not only substantial money, but that drones are also a more compassionate method to administer justice, if and when needed. John Brennan has my full support.

You are correct perhaps for the first time ever on this site. A mere letter has no legal authority in terms of American Policy. I fully expect Mr. Holder to use drone technology in a compassionate manner against Americans in only those extreme circumstances when absolutely necessary. Mr. Holder also has my full support. And if you were a real American you would support him also. But, you’re not, so I am wasting my time.

A filibuster in the United States Senate, led by some young hooligan named Rand Something, came to an inglorious end, as reasonable and appropriate senatorial behavior was restored by the Democrat Party leadership.

Senate Rethuglikkkan John McCain – a wonderful war hero who continues to serve his country – was observed speaking quietly to another Senate Rethuglikkkan, Lindsey Graham.

While Senators McCain and Graham don’t always tow the Democrat party line, they virtually always DO tow the Old Guard Rethuglikkkan party line, which is essentially the same thing.

Everyone we spoke to was delighted to have order restored back to the august United States Senate chamber, and they all said they had no idea what had gotten into the youngster who led the filibuster – but they were pretty sure his days in the Senate were numbered. Senator Harry Reid stated, for the record, that, “We don’t need this kind of nonsense in the Senate, unless it’s led by a Democrat, or possibly someone like my good friend Senator McCain, the gentleman from North Vietnam.”

Rare Senate Indictment of the War on Terrorism; Rand Paul’s Courageous Effort

To what extent should US citizens loses their constitutional right in the “war on terror”. Can US citizens be apprehended without charges? Killed by drones? On US soil?

John Brennan, Obama’s nomination to run the CIA, refused to disavow even that last question. In response, Senator Rand Paul courageously, and single-handedly sponsored a filibuster in the Senate to block Brennan’s appointment.

Wired reports 11 Years Later, Senate Wakes Up to War on Terror’s ‘Battlefield America’

Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster will inevitably fail at its immediate objective: derailing John Brennan’s nomination to run the CIA. But as it stretches into its sixth hour, it’s already accomplished something far more significant: raising political alarm over the extraordinary breadth of the legal claims that undergird the boundless, 11-plus-year “war on terrorism.”

The Kentucky Republican’s delaying tactic started over one rather narrow slice of that war: the Obama administration’s equivocation on whether it believes it has the legal authority to order a drone strike on an American citizen, in the United States.

Paul recognized outright that he would ultimately lose his fight to block Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief and architect of much of the administration’s targeted-killing efforts.

But as his time on the Senate floor went on, Paul went much further. He called into question aspects of the war on terrorism that a typically bellicose Congress rarely questions, and most often defends, often demagogically so. More astonishingly, Paul’s filibuster became such a spectacle that he got hawkish senators to join him.

as the filibuster picked up more and more media attention — and especially social-media attention — hawkish senators began joining in. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) praised Paul’s efforts at compelling transparency from the White House. What Paul is arguing is “no less important than our Constitutional government itself,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), no dove.

It would be foolish to presume that Paul’s moment in the spotlight heralds a new Senate willingness to roll back the expanses of the post-9/11 security apparatus. Rubio, for instance, stopped short of endorsing any of Paul’s substantive criticisms of the war. But Paul did manage to shift what political scientists call the Overton Window — the acceptable center of gravity of discussion.

Paul’s filibuster posed a challenge to the Senate more than it does Brennan or President Obama. “Is perpetual war OK with everybody?” he asked.
Brennan will be confirmed anyway, but Paul’s firm stance in the face of his chicken-hawk and constitutional-hypocrite colleagues is very much appreciated.

I support Rand Paul for president in 2016. It was a pleasure meeting him in person Monday evening at a fundraiser in Palatine Illinois.